Moving to Kentucky

[liminal_luke]

OK, so I lied.  I`m not moving to Kentucky.  I am however fit to be tied over rental law in Portland, Oregon where I own a house.  They`ve got this new law  called "mandatory renter relocation assistance."  If I decide I want to move back into my home or sell it, I`ll owe my renters thousands of dollars in relocation assistance money.  This even though they are on a month-to-month lease.  I thought a month-to-month lease meant that either party could back out of the agreement with a month notice.  Well, not anymore.  No matter how much notice I give my tenents, if I ask them to leave I owe them big bucks.

 

It`s almost enough to make a guy vote Republican.  (Not quite, mind you, but almost.)  Jeez!!!

Edited July 23, 2018 by liminal_luke

[Kar3n]

What's the point of a lease then?

 

[Lost in Translation]

That sucks. A friend told me about a nightmare tenant of his uncle. The tenant kept knocking holes in the walls and calling the house "unlivable". He stopped paying rent until the holes were fixed. After fixing them he'd knock new holes in walls. Long story short he lived rent free for over a year, and my friend's uncle had to pay thousands of dollars to get him to move. The kicker: California took the renters side. Unbelievable. 

[Aetherous]

You might want to look into that a lot more, get a lawyer to look into it. I don't know Portland, but I'm pretty sure this is a misunderstanding of the law...that if you give them proper notice you don't have to do that.

The fine print saves the one who reads it.

[liminal_luke]

Beats me.  I think they want to protect renters to mitigate the problem of homelessness.  That`s good in theory, but I would of thought owners would have the right to do what they like with their home too.

[Aetherous]

Found it for ya:

 

Quote

The Following Circumstances May be Exempt

Rental agreement for week-to-week tenancies
Tenants that occupy the same dwelling unit as the landlord
Tenants that occupy one dwelling unit in a Duplex where the Landlord’s principal residence is the second Dwelling Unit in the same Duplex
Tenants that occupy an Accessory Dwelling Unit that is subject to the Act in the City of Portland so long as the owner of the Accessory Dwelling Unit lives on the site
A Landlord who temporarily rents out their principal residence during an absence of not more than 3 years
A Landlord who temporarily rents out their principal residence during the Landlord’s absence due to active duty military service
A Dwelling Unit where the Landlord is terminating the Rental Agreement in order for an immediate family member to occupy the Dwelling Unit
A Dwelling Unit regulated as affordable housing by federal, state or local government for a period of at least 60 years
A Dwelling Unit subject to the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
A Dwelling Unit rendered uninhabitable not due to the action or inaction of a Landlord or Tenant 
A Dwelling Unit rented for less than 6 months with appropriate verification of the submission of a demolition permit prior to the Tenant renting the unit
A Dwelling Unit where the Landlord has provided a fixed term tenancy and notified the Tenant prior to occupancy, of the Landlords intent to sell of permanently convert the Dwelling Unit to a use other than as a Dwelling Unit subject to the Act.

 

 

To be exempt from paying Relocation Assistance

 

A Landlord is only exempt from mandatory relocation assistance requirements as outlined in Portland City Code if the Landlord meets the following requirements:

meet the criteria for an exemption listed in Section 30.01.085.G;
file the required Relocation Exemption Application (REA) form with the Portland Housing Bureau (“PHB”)
receive an acknowledgment letter from PHB (the “Acknowledgement Letter”)
Provides a copy of the exemption Acknowledgement Letter to the Tenant prior to:
a. Issuing an Increase Notice;
b. Issuing a Termination Notice; 
c. Declining to renew or replace an expiring Rental Agreement; or 
d. Declining to renew or replace an expiring Rental Agreement on substantially the same terms except for the amount of Rent or Associated Housing Costs.

 

source

 

The bolded part tells how you might be exempt from this, due to moving back in.

You'd have to do all the legal paperwork first, and it probably takes a few months.

[thelerner]

I was watching Portlandia.  Very funny.. except when it's real.  PC run amuck.

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by thelerner

[liminal_luke]

33 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

You might want to look into that a lot more, get a lawyer to look into it. I don't know Portland, but I'm pretty sure this is a misunderstanding of the law...that if you give them proper notice you don't have to do that.

The fine print saves the one who reads it.

 

Thanks Aetherous.  Unfortunately, those exemptions you pointed out wouldn`t apply to me.  The house has been rented out for more than three years, and I don`t have an immediate family member who would want to move in (the owner or spouse of owner do not qualify).

[Aetherous]

18 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

and I don`t have an immediate family member who would want to move in (the owner or spouse of owner do not qualify).

 

Oh weird, I thought that one would work...because who is more of an immediate family member than oneself!

Lawyers must know a way around this.

Or you might get lucky and work it out with the tenants...half of the time they're reasonable.

[idquest]

Well the next step - they will introduce an empty homes tax. This is what they did in Vancouver BC. The tax is 1%, the cheapest detached house is about $1mln, so an owner of an empty house has to pay  $10,000+++ per year. How much did you say they want for relocation expense?

[liminal_luke]

1 hour ago, idquest said:

Well the next step - they will introduce an empty homes tax. This is what they did in Vancouver BC. The tax is 1%, the cheapest detached house is about $1mln, so an owner of an empty house has to pay  $10,000+++ per year. How much did you say they want for relocation expense?

 

The size of the relocation fee depends on the size of the rental.  For a three bedroom home like mine it would be $4,500.

[Lost in Translation]

1 hour ago, idquest said:

Well the next step - they will introduce an empty homes tax. This is what they did in Vancouver BC. The tax is 1%, the cheapest detached house is about $1mln, so an owner of an empty house has to pay  $10,000+++ per year. How much did you say they want for relocation expense?

 

Last I was in BC the B&B owner mentioned this. It seems the tax is a response to a lot of Chinese owners who buy property and sit on it until their kids go to college or they retire. Lots of houses sit vacant apparently. This B&B was in a neighborhood where about 2/3 houses were empty, and these are large McMansions in an older part of town so it wasn't new construction. The world is changing...

[windwalker]

3 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

The size of the relocation fee depends on the size of the rental.  For a three bedroom home like mine it would be $4,500.

 

Would that include the deposit too?

 

My hometown San Francisco has a lot of crazy rules regarding renters vs landlords,  similar to what some have mentioned here.

 

Before relocating to Taiwan, we had to sell our  trailer house that we owned in a trailer park in Sunnyvale ca. that was being bought out to turn into Condominiums.

 

The relocation package was good, not enough to allow one to really remain in the area.

Some are still fighting a losing battle.

 

Taiwan has some of the same problems with property speculators. 

 

Their soultion to help mitigate this ,

 

the property has to be owned for a number of years before it could be a resold.

Edited July 24, 2018 by windwalker

[Marblehead]

10 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

OK, so I lied.  I`m not moving to Kentucky. 

Burn the damn place down, collect the insurance and move to Kentucky.

 

(There are still real people in Kentucky.)

 

[joeblast]

8 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

The size of the relocation fee depends on the size of the rental.  For a three bedroom home like mine it would be $4,500.

This is all to discourage plebes from keeping their family's houses that they dont want to live in, so that they might use it as rental income.  Solution of "Progress?"  Make it very uncomfortable for plebes to rent out their extra houses - that's a mortgage that could be paid to the One Bank.

 

Sure, its not directly paid to the One Bank....but when that new loan gets created, the One Bank just made another cha ching for its fraudulent "money" flow - a new ledger entry is made, a new mortgage's worth of "money" created - for the plebes to collectively pay interest on, in perpetuity.  (This is but one reason why I assert that all banking entities attached to the BIS should not have their "debts" even so much as fkn MEASURED when the "National Debt" is calculated - any debt "owed" to any entity attached to the BIS is Odious, null, and void.)

 

Death to the Central Banking cartels-institutions.  They are nothing but a massive siphon at many layers of society.

 

Take your desirable parts of "Progressivism" and discard all the plebe-fucking, and you arrive at Libertarian

Edited July 24, 2018 by joeblast

[liminal_luke]

11 hours ago, windwalker said:

 

Would that include the deposit too?

 

 

No, the relocation fee is totally separate from the deposit, unfortunately.  

[liminal_luke]

5 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Burn the damn place down, collect the insurance and move to Kentucky.

 

(There are still real people in Kentucky.)

 

 

Nah, I`d pay the fee before I burned the place down, as onerous as it feels.  The Kentucky part is slightly tempting though.  Although I suspect I`d have plenty of other difficulties there, housing regulations wouldn`t be one of them.

 

What`s interesting to me is the way that the law pits tenants against landlords.  I`ve been a very easygoing landlord raising the rent only minimally and responding favorably to tenant requests.  Now I feel like I need to up the rent the maximum amount (below 10% yearly) just so that they`ll decide to move out and I`ll be free from the burden of this law.  Or else finding some small reason to break the lease "for cause" that I might not have cared about earlier.  So a law intended to protect renters has the unintended consequence of making their lives more difficult. 

[Marblehead]

18 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

What`s interesting to me is the way that the law pits tenants against landlords.

I have mentioned the NWO before.  They are trying to make everyone equally poor and stupid.  Regretfully, they are having a lot of successes.

 

[joeblast]

17 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Nah, I`d pay the fee before I burned the place down, as onerous as it feels.  The Kentucky part is slightly tempting though.  Although I suspect I`d have plenty of other difficulties there, housing regulations wouldn`t be one of them.

 

What`s interesting to me is the way that the law pits tenants against landlords.  I`ve been a very easygoing landlord raising the rent only minimally and responding favorably to tenant requests.  Now I feel like I need to up the rent the maximum amount (below 10% yearly) just so that they`ll decide to move out and I`ll be free from the burden of this law.  Or else finding some small reason to break the lease "for cause" that I might not have cared about earlier.  So a law intended to protect renters has the unintended consequence of making their lives more difficult. 

My grandparents have a few rental homes....er, gram, now....but mom has been managing all that for quite a few years (grum's 97 on sat)....and she's revised her rental agreement quite a few times, so as to protect us from idiot renters who cost us money.

 

Go over it with a VERY fine toothed comb - bring the new lease to them and say we're no longer doing a month to month, I require a lease/rent agreement, and here it is - if you find that you're not agreeable to the terms, you dont have to sign it, but at that point, I will give you X days to move out.

[Lost in Translation]

2 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

So a law intended to protect renters has the unintended consequence of making their lives more difficult. 

 

This is quite unfortunate but it a hallmark of much well-meaning legislation. For example rent control starts off good until the landlord stops maintaining the building and it turns into a slum. Minimum wage is good until it eliminates jobs that young people need to get their start in the labor market.

[Michael Sternbach]

Maybe moving to Kentucky would indeed be a sensible option after all...

 

 

Looks lovely!

 

 

(Just kidding.)

[windwalker]

4 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

This is quite unfortunate but it a hallmark of much well-meaning legislation. For example rent control starts off good until the landlord stops maintaining the building and it turns into a slum. Minimum wage is good until it eliminates jobs that young people need to get their start in the labor market.

 

You eft out being the landlord and being a business owner. 

 

Immigration has a lot to do with wages in the labor market, legal and illegal.

 

It's all good until you're on the other side. 

 

 People have a habit of not respecting things that they're not invested in, their attitude why should they it's not theirs.

 

The same ones that complain about  landlords often do the same things should they become a landlord, for the same reasons.

 

[Lost in Translation]

7 minutes ago, windwalker said:

You eft out being the landlord and being a business owner. 

 

I think I included both. Rent control consumes the landlord's profits, disincentivizing him from maintaining the property above the minimum level. This harms the landlord and the tenant. Minimum wage cuts into the business owner's profits, hampering his ability to hire employees and it eliminates low skilled jobs that are needed by those just entering the job market. Well meaning legislators may think they are helping but generally they don't. The free market has a way of maximizing good even though it may not always look that way on the surface.